Practice question
COMELEC's Law Department files a nuisance petition but presents only bare assertions that an aspirant is obscure and unlikely to win. The tribunal orders cancellation because the aspirant did not disprove every unsupported assertion. No substantial evidence establishes a Section 69 ground. Under Mustapha, which assessment is correct?
- The agency's identity automatically proves every assertion
- The aspirant must disprove unsupported allegations before the petitioner has any evidentiary burden
- Predicted defeat itself is a statutory nuisance ground
- The decision improperly substitutes burden shifting for proof of the statutory ground
- A small predicted vote share permanently bars public office
Legal references
- Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, Omnibus Election Code, Section 69, nuisance candidates: https://lawphil.net/statutes/bataspam/bp1985/bp_881_1985.html
- Mustapha v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 277177, July 8, 2025, main decision, nuisance candidacy, substantial evidence and due process: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/jul2025/gr_277177_2025.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.